Jim Linville has posted concerns about the proliferation of sessions at the SBL Annual Meeting which focus on or relate to theology and the concerns of religious communities, even while curtailing or cutting back on some more mainstream scholarly sessions.
I am in two minds about this, since it is certainly the case that many Biblical scholars, including ones who are thoroughly committed to the scholarly enterprise using the same methods that are used in secular scholarship, nonetheless do their scholarship in church-affiliated institutions and thus in service of the church. And while sessions that touch on homiletics or theology may not interest you or me personally, as long as there is academic rigor to what is going on, I have no objection in principle. The truth is that there are many sessions that might have greater academic currency – drawing on Deleuze or Freud – that would be no more appealing to some of us than those connected to specific theological or ecclesiastical traditions. They might seem to us to be of less value than the ones we find interesting. If I get around to proposing a program unit on the Bible and science fiction, some will give it a wide berth. But is the answer to curtail such sessions, or to leave room for all of them?
At present, my inclination is to view the matter thus: I don’t mind other people doing things that I don’t personally find valuable, as long as (1) there is academic rigor; and (2) all viewpoint are free to hold their program units. And at present, there does indeed seem to be legitimate cause for concern in both these areas.
What do others think? How do we ensure that the Society of Biblical Literature is a society in which the methods of secular critical scholarship are the tools we all agree upon? Is the answer to cut back on theological and homiletical sessions? Or to simply allow secular, atheist and other views to have their own sessions to? Or are there other options?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In